/m/a-rod

Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

The teams really get off the hook on the steroid stuff. If you are one of those who believe steroids are some magic bullet that was required for success in the late90s/early00s then why is there never an assumption that teams like the Yankees, Red Sox, Braves, Cardinals, that had great success in those years weren't actively distributing the things? Of course then we might have to consider the possibility of people like Jeter or Maddux doing steroids and of course they never did, they are pure as the driven snow.

The teams really get off the hook on the steroid stuff. If you are one of those who believe steroids are some magic bullet that was required for success in the late90s/early00s then why is there never an assumption that teams like the Yankees, Red Sox, Braves, Cardinals, that had great success in those years weren't actively distributing the things? Of course then we might have to consider the possibility of people like Jeter or Maddux doing steroids and of course they never did, they are pure as the driven snow.

This. I mean you have the A's not knowing anything with Canseco and McGwire, you have the Diamondbacks, the Giants with Bonds and Marvin Benard and Benito Santiago and Jason Christensen, and the Yanks with A-Rod and Clemens and Pettitte and Cervelli (and Jesus Montero if you want to count him). Could be coincedence, but there should at least be investigations as to whether teams were pushing this. Just yesterday someone posted an old quote where Lou Merloni accused the Red Sox of pushing it.

Yeah, the Braves were pushing steroids to Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine, Denny Neagle, Steve Avery, Bruce Chen (how else can you explain the fact that he's STILL pitching?), and the rest of the gumby-looking staff that was the impetus behind the Braves title run.

Yeah, the Braves were pushing steroids to Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine, Denny Neagle, Steve Avery, Bruce Chen (how else can you explain the fact that he's STILL pitching?), and the rest of the gumby-looking staff that was the impetus behind the Braves title run.

As far as I recall, all we know about Sheff was his statements about not being comfy with whatever Greg Anderson was giving him during his brief co-training with Bonds.

There's a lot of smoke surrounding Sheffield in the Mitchell Report. What you choose to see is up to you.

Sheffield can protest his innocence, but it is undeniable that he was in the same steroid pipeline as the known users. He had a chance to interview for the Mitchell Report, but declined. He also claimed that steroid use was rampant in the mid-90s, and he even asked Selig to investigate steroid abuse. Selig has stated that he never received such a request and, years later, Sheffield would plead ignorance to the fact that he was taking steroids from BALCO via the trainer that he and Barry Bonds shared.

Such as? According to wiki, the only mention of Sheffield is that there was a BALCO FedEx receipt.

We know -- from a NY Times Magazine piece written with Bonds' approval before BALCO was a scandal and before the Mitchell committee ever met -- that Sheffield trained briefly with Bonds and Anderson. That's the bit I was referring to above. Sheffield claimed, in real time, that he couldn't hack Bonds' regimen and then later, in his book, that he didn't like the effects of what Anderson was giving him.

If that's all there is then whoop-de-doo. Yes, for a period of a few months, we have evidence that steroids likely resided in Sheffield's system. He didn't speak with the Mitchell group just like every other active player. You're gonna get worked up about that? Weak sauce.

If there's more in the Mitchell Report then please share it with Wiki. If there's more smoke surrounding Sheffield, cite it. There may well be -- I don't care so I don't track these things like a hawk.

And this was never resolved. I'm still waiting for someone to pin down George Mitchell due to this CNN transcript of an October 29, 2004 interview by Soledad O'Brien with Senator Mitchell that describes his status with the Red Sox.

http://transcripts.cnn.com.TRANSCRIPTS/0410/29/ltm.06.html

O'BRIEN: On a much lighter note, how about those Red Sox? I understand that you have a little stake in the team?

MITCHELL: Oh, it's great. I do. Yes, I do. I am involved with the Red Sox. I am a lifelong fan. I grew up in Maine and...

O'BRIEN: A part owner, too, beyond being a fan.

MITCHELL: Yes. Well, not that much of an owner.

O'BRIEN: Well, still more than most people do.

MITCHELL: Yes, no, it was a great success, a great season and a great success.

What lie? He didn't say "no, I'm not an owner", he acknowledged that he owned a piece of the team. I don't see anything untrue in what you quoted.

That doesn't change the fact that using a part-owner for an "independent" report should have been embarrassing for MLB. I'd like to say it's shocking that the media didn't make more of this story when the Mitchell Report came out but...

What lie? He didn't say "no, I'm not an owner", he acknowledged that he owned a piece of the team. I don't see anything untrue in what you quoted.

Then why did Mitchell make this statement in the Report?

Mitchell, a Democrat and former federal judge who is now the chair of the global board of DLA Piper LLP, a law firm with 3,600 lawyers in 25 countries, lays out his possible conflicts in Appendix A of his report.

“I have been a consultant to the owners of the Boston Red Sox since that club was acquired in 2002 by an ownership group led by John W. Henry. The club labels that position ‘director,’ ” Mitchell writes.

He goes on to state that he is not involved in baseball operations, that he has no vote in owners’ decisions and he does not have “any ownership or other equity interest in the Red Sox.”

--

He did say "no, I am not an owner in his "own" Report.

It's easy - you either own a piece or you don't. Was Mitchell delusional while writing the Report or did he commit MLB's version of perjury by lying to the Office of the Commissioner during an investigation by inserting this?

That's different. I was responding to the excerpt you quoted. I hadn't seen that, that's good stuff right there. He should be banned for 50, no 100, no 211 games! And booed everywhere! And Ryan Dempster should throw a fastball at him!

Everytime I think the owners have done everything they can to look bad in my eyes they take it a step further.

It's easy - you either own a piece or you don't. Was Mitchell delusional while writing the Report or did he commit MLB's version of perjury by lying to the Office of the Commissioner during an investigation by inserting this?

I guess it's also technically possible that he could have threaded the needle by divesting himself of his ownership stake, whatever it was, before he started working on the report. He only says that he doesn't have an "ownership or equity interest" at that time, not that he never did.

I guess it's also technically possible that he could have threaded the needle by divesting himself of his ownership stake, whatever it was, before he started working on the report. He only says that he doesn't have an "ownership or equity interest" at that time, not that he never did.

The First Lady of Virginia looks to have done this. She sold all stock in a company (that she and her husband have been actively promoting) in mid-December and bought it back in mid-January, which conveniently allowed her not to avoid mentioning the that ownership in a disclosure on December 31st of all stock that she owned. Technically legal, but shady.

Not declaring those things makes people assume you have something to hide.

And why was the Mitchell ownership status never examined by the media?

The NY Times (and Boston Globe by extension) owned part of the Red Sox and Mitchell had been Chairman of ABC/Disney, which besides having broadcasting rights also had ownership of the Angels for awhile.

Professional courtesy for a career politician.

And then there are the Red Sox contributions to the Mitchell Institute charity.

And then there's the 1994 DSHEA, which limited FDA powers (pre-Republican control of the House, mind you!) and resulted in 25% contamination of supplements with steroids and 10% contamination with amphetamines. Leader of Senate when it passed - George Mitchell? person who pushed it through the House? Henry Waxman. And the lead Republican defending production of supplements? Orrin Hatch?